If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

*Cluesforum's research of Nasa's fraudulent Space Shuttle program "ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts", initiated in May 2011, has naturally led us to question the very existence of the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION which, of course, we are told was assembled piece by piece by the wondrous "Flying Bricks" (NASA's so-called 'Space Shuttles') - and the comical, midget Soyuz space modules.

It has emerged that NASA is, basically, nothing but a colossal "Hollywood" department financed by untold billions of taxpayers' monies - and has not ceased to deceive the public ever since its first major "blockbuster" - the grossly concocted Moon Hoax.

NASA, essentially, is science-fiction sold as truth. But don't take our word for it, verify our findings for yourself - then fasten your seat belts and enjoy your smooth landing back to Earth as we jettison into the void of space, one by one, all of NASA's astronomical lies.

I concur with your thought (as quoted above). However, allow me to ask: why bother to bring these actors up in a hypersonic plane just to shoot a few minutes/hours of 'magic footage' - when all can be done with 'Hollywood' special fx?

First, watch that woman on the right as she magically produces an orange from her hand and throws it to her colleague:

Now, I hope we can agree it is indeed an orange - or something of that size.

Next, her partner throws the orange at the camera lens - and it actually bounces off the lens:(Note: no large interior window is known to exist inside the "ISS".)

Well, next time you have an orange and a camera handy, try putting the orange right in front of your lens. Better still, try throwing it at your lens and see if you can reproduce what we see in the above shot. Good luck!

But...of course, naysayers will say: "Duh! NASA has those HUUUGE, special monster lenses which we mere mortals can only dream of !"

On NASA TV there is a series of streams to pick from. One of the streams is the Space Station Views stream, supposedly showing the activity from the ISS in real time. It doesn't work always but I remember watching it a few times a while back (it was very boring, of course, and it never offered a glimpse of space like I hoped) but as I remember it showed scenery from the inside of the station for spans way longer than 20 seconds.

As I said, judging from the reactions and interactions between the actornauts (<--- yes yes I just invented this, and you're welcome to use it! ) they feel "real" enough videos (at least to my less experienced eyes). Let's not forget that it must be a tedious long process to create credible footage with special effects, say transforming gravity acting into non-gravity acting, and they did use to offer lots of hours of such footage from the ISS.I am very open to the idea that magic tricks, not visible to my naive eyes, are being used by these david copperfileds to create non-gravity footage: but couldn't it be that they do have an orbiter just to offer credible film in absence of gravity? They probably did with Apollo, no? Let's not forget the compartmentalization that may require even some of the scientists to be conned into believing the ISS or the Shuttle are really up there.

*

BTW, the old Apollo "stars" argument is still valid with the ISS, and I think it is an important one, albeit for absence of clues rather than for presence.

We are explained that the stars are not visible if the camera is filming the earth because of the luminosity. Very well. But is it conceivable that, out of curiosity, never in twenty more years they felt like turning the camera outwards, maybe during one of the passages in the dark, to show us what must be a breath-taking show of billions of stars shining on?Think about it: you are in space and there is no atmosphere between you and the stars. That would be a never-before-seen memorable event. Any of us would have the immediate impulse and curiosity to look into space and report back the incredible impression, that nowhere on earth, not even in remote areas of Chile, can be experienced. And yet, the silence about the stars, once again and like with Apollo, is deafening.

nonhocapito wrote:We are explained that the stars are not visible if the camera is filming the earth because of the luminosity. Very well. But is it conceivable that, out of curiosity, never in twenty more years they felt like turning the camera outwards, maybe during one of the passages in the dark, to show us what must be a breath-taking show of billions of stars shining on?Think about it: you are in space and there is no atmosphere between you and the stars. That would be a never-before-seen memorable event. Any of us would have the immediate impulse and curiosity to look into space and report back the incredible impression, that nowhere on earth, not even in remote areas of Chile, can be experienced. And yet, the silence about the stars, once again and like with Apollo, is deafening.

Excellent points, nonho.

And, as you also pointed out, "even scientists must be conned into believing the ISS or the Shuttle are really up there".

Exactly. Think about it: astronomers have been charting the firmament (and the relative positions of the stars) for millennia. Their relative positions should not differ much from the perspective of a Space Station floating a few hundred miles from Earth. Thus, by leaving out the stars from their bogus ISS/Shuttle imagery, they eliminate the only scientifically verifiable element by any experienced, independent stargazer. Imagine what a nightmare it would be to digitally compose a credible, astronomically accurate pattern of stars in each and everyone of their phony space pictures. Hence:

The stars - being the only empirically verifiable visual element by us 'earth-crawlers' - are therefore conveniently absent in their virtual space imagery to hinder any incontestable, scientific (astronomically speaking) debunking of the same.

Now, naysayers may say: "Hey, what about the ISS itself, then? I can see it with my home telescope!" Well, I don't have a knowledgeable take on that at this moment. But I hope to buy myself a decent telescope in the near future - in order to personally verify what this guy has to say:

The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a hoax!As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’.

Knowing the quoted altitude of this object (the ISS) and estimating its approximate apparent diameter by comparing it with the apparent diameter of the planet Saturn at the time (excluding its rings), I was able to calculate its absolute diameter as being somewhere around 40 metres. A perfectly round man-made object of this size in space could only be a balloon that has been inflated in orbit. Such experimental balloon satellites were officially launched in the early 1960’s (e.g. Echo 1 and 2). (...)http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/sho ... php?t=8084http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/

Well, it shouldn't really look 'like an aeroplane', btw. But certainly NOT like a balloon :

Since the station orbits the Earth once every 90 minutes, it sees a sunrise or a sunset every 45 minutes. When the station is in darkness, external camera video may appear black, but also may provide spectacular views of city lights below.

Yeah -- 'cause it would be so boring to point a camera outwards into space instead, wouldn't it. Sorry if I am still on this, but -- If only this planet wasn't populated by a multitude of astronomy aficionados who would give a hand and foot to be able to witness such a show in real time. Why NASA should make them happy? They're the competition.

A couple of screenshots from NASA TV (with my comments) (NASA says this is from a video shot by actornaut Nespoli from the Soyuz when it was leaving the ISS):

Another thing is also puzzling, how would you or a computer navigate? What point of reference would it use. Does it sail by the stars I know you can navigate with GPS on the ground using triangulation but in 3d space the only reference would be ground based transmitters, but they would be always on the move, so both the shuttle is moving and the earth, to get accurate positioning sounds impossible. Now you have to think that they can find and dock with another craft using what for reference?

(Edit) I think it would be possible to intercept a space station, I forgot how planes get about in the sky You would need to track both objects from the ground and plot the journey between the two. Still would be hard with the difficulties mentioned before with speed and maneuverability.

I've been thinking about the Hubble Space Telescope too when it comes to positioning itself in 3D space, how does it do this exactly for so long? Its been up there for years allegedly so how did it not come down to earth by now? You also have to take into account that to take all them lovely pictures it would need complex fine movements to new locations, how is this done, by computer, or by commands from the ground, with the time delay I imagine this would be complex to do. I'm just dropping some of my thoughts out there for you all to think about. The whole space business seems to not add up at the moment.

So, let's stay with km - which I'm more familiar with. I know that when I travel in an airplane, I will not be more than 10km over our planet. Here's what I usually see from my window seat (btw, I always choose a window seat, just LOVE THE VIEW!):

Now, here's a picture of the ISS (the International Space Station) which altitude, apparently, is at least 27 times higher than my average flight:ISS picture source: NASA (2011)

27 times higher? Does this all add up? Does the ISS appear to soar 27 times higher than your average, passenger airliner? What's going on here?

THE WONDROUS BATSHIPa closer look at NASA's International Space Station

The bat-like "ISS" is a truly spectacular space vessel which, at first look, instantly evokes the science-fiction movies of our childhood. As NASA and ESA (the European Space Agency) tell us, it has been gradually put together over the years with parts delivered by the Space Shuttles and the Soyuz modules. It reportedly circles around the Earth in low-orbit at an average speed of 27,700km/h and at an average altitude of 350km or so. The valiant astronauts - we are told - perform perilous spacewalks to assemble, screw and bolt the various parts together, be they solar panels, oxygen tanks, scientific equipment or whatnot. Here we have four pictures of what I will 'affectionately' callthe Batship - as released by NASA in recent years:

The most striking feature of the ISS vessel are, of course, those 16 huge solar panels which - it seems - change color according to their orientation vis-à-vis the sun (or for whatever other reason which I haven't yet learned). In fact, as any mere mortal unfamiliar with spaceships and lower-orbit travel, I felt initially quite belittled by this marvel of space technology and over-awed by its apparent architectural complexity. One detail, however, captured my unflinching curiosity - and I decided to give it a closer and proper look.

The 8 pairs of solar panels are held by a central 'pylon', an axial metal structure anchored on the ISS. I was intrigued by their design and wished to learn more about those pylons. The two below images are artists' impressions published by NASA and by the Canadian Space Agency website. Presumably, such graphic artists know what they are doing, yet they evidently don't seem to agree on the design/pattern of those pylons:

THE PYLON DESIGN according to the NASA artist:

THE PYLON DESIGN according to the CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY artist:

Oh well, I thought: artists' impressions are just what they are - only artist impressions. So I decided to look at 'the real things' and search for every available picture showing some good detail of those pylon designs. Below, I have posted 7 pictures from the NASA 2009 - 2011 archives:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 1:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 2:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 3:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 4:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 5:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 6:

SOLAR PANEL PYLON model 7:

My obvious question would be: do they actually periodically replace/substitute those huge pylons - for some unfathomable reason? Perhaps the Russian and American female-astronauts have an aesthetic feud going on - a bit like your wife and daughter squabbling about the type of curtain to be hung in the living room? To be sure, it appears this squabble is an ongoing one: one day it is won by the Americans - and the next by the Russians - back and forth!

To return in serious mode: my overwhelming impression is that these pictures of the ISS are artificial - most likely made with scale models and photographed in a studio. If I am wrong - only time will tell. But this feeling of mine is now expounded - for everyone to assess with their best intutition and judgment.

What else have I got - you may ask - to question the International Space Station's very existence?

For now, not much else. But if you are able to appreciate the importance of DETAILED photo analysis, I submit this other one.The below sequence of 3 photos are meant to depict the arrival and attachment of ESA's (the European Space Agency's) 'COLUMBUS' module. I honestly don't know what this cylindrical, ESA module is meant to be, at this moment. Suffice to say that a serial number tag of this module (COL/C1-02) simply disapppears - AND reappears in the process. And no - I haven't photoshopped/blurred the tag myself - you can find the original, high-res pictures at NASA.gov:

Now, the very first thing you will hear when questioning the existence of the ISS (the International Space Station) is:

"Duh, it can be seen with your bare eyes/with a binocular/or telescope from any location on Earth."Well, I am myself contacting my local astronomy club to see the ISS with my OWN EYES. I will let you know the outcome of this in due time.

For now, I will show you what are considered as the best and most awesome sightings of the ISS - as proposed by one "Mike Tyrrell" - who was invited to the BBC on the strength of his unique footage he achieved with some special optical software that he allegedly invented...

The picture you call "Model 4" is really perplexing. If every outside face of each "row of cubes" forming the "pylon" has an X on it, how does that face suddenly have two X's in it unless that's another pylon just behind it? Is that just a feature of one of the eight solar panel pairs?

Then you have "Model 7" which looks like it has extra lines or extra-warped lines.

Weird.

Also, the missing serial number on the ESA pod is a dead give away for photo-manipulation. Good find there!

Also, that weird character with the photo stream posted this image of the Endeavour launch? And I noticed he used this same descriptive text for two of the alleged "photos" - which is odd given the seemingly casual nature of the description complete with "sonic boom" stretched out oddly. My guess is that this is a peek into the controlled and "pre-approved" nature of all NASA imagery. They only screened one descriptive text which he sloppily copy-pasted on two different photo releases.

And I noticed he spelled it "Endeavour" as the Brits do. I had to double check that one. Apparently, NASA gave this ship - meant to replace Challenger after that hoaxed "Challenger disaster" event made them take one sim-shuttle out of the game - the name of the British ship, which was also the name of a previous NASA mission back in the Apollo program. I wonder why someone might want to do that? Is this a hint that the UK intelligence/MoD is heavily part of the DoD? Perhaps the UK has always had a collaborative role with NASA ... it is Endeavour because it is named after the British exploratory vessel of James Cook. Which seems odd for something as Bible-thumpingly "patriotic" as the NASA nonsense. But it makes sense given the UK-USA collaboration of producing 9/11.

repentantandy wrote:"The same logic for shuttles and other spacecraft also goes for satellites. These are fake also. Big balloons with telecommunications equipment on them probably hover somehow, somewhere well below the point where meteorites burn up in the atmosphere."

Nope. Sorry.

I've had loads of experience with aiming/tuning/adjusting satellite dishes and can assure you that the phenomenon of "geostationary orbit" is very real and very reliable, even though it was supposedly predicted by the evil occultist/pedophile Arthur C. Clarke decades before its accomplishment. Wind-susceptible balloon technology, held aloft by specific-gravity differential in Earth's gaseous atmosphere, is no more a functional part of satellite communication than it was a part of the Roswell psyop.

repentantandy I am going to stick with what makes sense to me. Satellites (as we have been presented with them) have exactly the same Blue Peter-stick your empty toilet rolls together-thornbirds look as all the other stuff.

Now compare this to one of the first Satellites to grace the firmament ..sputnik 1

No extraneous parts.A rugged metal round casing which could probably take a few hits from micro particles. Antennae which are long and narrow presenting the smallest cross-section area to would be satellite killer ultra fast particles. I do think something like this could swing around the earth a couple of times and they probably did in the late 50s and early 60s. It looks like the Russians actually thought about what goes on beyond the clouds.

The flimsy origami satellites we have been presented with in the last few decades - I am 100% positive cannot meet with million mile wide clouds of particles of different sizes all traveling at super high speeds and come through unscathed. Not in a million years. Technology is crap and breaks down all the time. ONe 'Ding' and your billion squid investment is heading for the sewers. Because you thought you were tuning into a Geo static satellite beyond your vision means nothing. Geostatic orbits in theory have a coverage of 1/4 of the earth so having to tune into something with such a wide girth doesn't quite make sense. THere is plenty of scope for low orbit solar powered machines/balloons, or whatever you are having yourself, which are below the level where meteorites tear and rip their way through the atmosphere but can easily bounce signals back to the Earth like the appearance of a satellite .Here is just one..

(Perhaps there are Satellites which are encased in iron and look very dumpy but we are not allowed to see them lest they shine an inquisitory light on the civilian space program?)

Behind all of this lies the specter of Arthur C. Clarke, to whom you allude to RepentA. He is generally credited with the notion of Satellites " Extra-Terrestrial Relays — Can Rocket Stations Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?" was published in Wireless World in 1945, and his story 'the sentinel' is the inspiration behind the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick and Clarke. The visionaries behind the 'Moon' missions. Kubrick on aesthetics and Clarke on technicals.